News0 min ago
Why are R&S theists different from the norm?
49 Answers
I have waffled on this site for many years but don’t bother any more. It seems that everything has been said many times: the reasons why religious belief is irrational; the lack of historical back-up to the Jesus story, and so on. naomi (unlike me) has studied the Koran and has had perceptive things to say about that.
But the response from the theists has never risen above the constant repetition of the same fixed, unexplained, unjustified dogma.
So it would be tempting to assume that all theists are like programmed automata, constantly repeating their mantras and completely unable to reason for themselves.
And that’s the curious thing: they’re not. Away from AB R&S I correspond (yes, using envelopes and stamps, would you believe?) with many theists, professional and amateur – bishops, clergymen, religious authors, everyday believers – and with the exception of one Archbishop (who is plainly mad) all are able and willing to discuss and debate, and even concede points when they see the logic. They do not try to convert me to religion and I would not be so impertinent as to press my atheism on them.
So why this difference? Why so many reasonable theists out there when all we get on R&S are mindless bigots like ... no, I won’t name them; we all know who they are.
Any ideas anyone?
But the response from the theists has never risen above the constant repetition of the same fixed, unexplained, unjustified dogma.
So it would be tempting to assume that all theists are like programmed automata, constantly repeating their mantras and completely unable to reason for themselves.
And that’s the curious thing: they’re not. Away from AB R&S I correspond (yes, using envelopes and stamps, would you believe?) with many theists, professional and amateur – bishops, clergymen, religious authors, everyday believers – and with the exception of one Archbishop (who is plainly mad) all are able and willing to discuss and debate, and even concede points when they see the logic. They do not try to convert me to religion and I would not be so impertinent as to press my atheism on them.
So why this difference? Why so many reasonable theists out there when all we get on R&S are mindless bigots like ... no, I won’t name them; we all know who they are.
Any ideas anyone?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The waters tend to get muddy pretty fast when you have a variety of different points of view all converging in one place. One thing I've learned from my participation here is that very often atheists come to their convictions for a variety of different reasons and often have opposing and sometimes conflicting views on other subjects, not to the exclusion of what an atheist is.
It would appear that the people you're talking to (and those that I talk to) have a genuine interest in theology as a subject. I'd guess that most of the religious here on AB are just repeating what someone else, who left out the nasty bits (apart from the vital bit about eternal punishment of course), has taught them.
Firstly, if you are referring to me, I object to being called a mindless bigot. I am open to any reasonable question. But as the majority of you on here are atheists, I don’t get any logical or reasonable answers, hence my (to you) illogical and mindless responses. I am not out to convert. I have explained time and time again that a convert has to do it of his own free will and not under duress.
Centuries ago in an effort to convert pagans, there was an unscriptural blending of Christian beliefs with pagan ones, for example Christmas. The church chose a date that coincided with the most important pagan festival. And what of Christmas customs? The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics admits that most Christmas customs “are not genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church.” It was apparently felt that simply giving these customs a Christian facade would Christianize those who took part in them.
My beliefs do not include any pagan or heathen customs and the organization I belong to does not accept any of the so called religious dogmas, traditions or ceremonies.
Centuries ago in an effort to convert pagans, there was an unscriptural blending of Christian beliefs with pagan ones, for example Christmas. The church chose a date that coincided with the most important pagan festival. And what of Christmas customs? The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics admits that most Christmas customs “are not genuine Christian customs, but heathen customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church.” It was apparently felt that simply giving these customs a Christian facade would Christianize those who took part in them.
My beliefs do not include any pagan or heathen customs and the organization I belong to does not accept any of the so called religious dogmas, traditions or ceremonies.
Being (as I would like to think) a reasonable theist who has occasionally risen to the bait here, I think there are two basic issues.
Firstly, the term "reasonable theist" appears to be an oxymoron to the majority of habitual contributors, so the "discussion" rarely rises above the Python's argument sketch (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572
077907195969915
for those who have forgotten).
Secondly, there seems to be a strong tendency to assume that all theists "must" believe certain things - if you're in one of the Judeo-Christian traditions, you must accept that the Dawsonesque stereotype of the murderous Hebraic deity is what you believe, that all religion is a matter of mind control of the pathetic masses for the benefit of the priestly class, that all who don't believe will suffer eternal punishment, that given half a chance we "religionists" would enthusiastically re-establish the Inquisition and so on and so on. Check the posts,over a period of time, see how rapidly they are channelled down the same old track. For a while, I quite enjoyed it, though frequently accused of "moving the goalposts" if I tried approaching an issue from another point of view. After a while, it ceased to become fun, and since I'm quite sure that the main protagonists can take care of their own souls and I feel no great urge to interfere, the pleasure of it evaporated.
No offence intended to any of the regulars. May your god go with you.
Firstly, the term "reasonable theist" appears to be an oxymoron to the majority of habitual contributors, so the "discussion" rarely rises above the Python's argument sketch (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572
077907195969915
for those who have forgotten).
Secondly, there seems to be a strong tendency to assume that all theists "must" believe certain things - if you're in one of the Judeo-Christian traditions, you must accept that the Dawsonesque stereotype of the murderous Hebraic deity is what you believe, that all religion is a matter of mind control of the pathetic masses for the benefit of the priestly class, that all who don't believe will suffer eternal punishment, that given half a chance we "religionists" would enthusiastically re-establish the Inquisition and so on and so on. Check the posts,over a period of time, see how rapidly they are channelled down the same old track. For a while, I quite enjoyed it, though frequently accused of "moving the goalposts" if I tried approaching an issue from another point of view. After a while, it ceased to become fun, and since I'm quite sure that the main protagonists can take care of their own souls and I feel no great urge to interfere, the pleasure of it evaporated.
No offence intended to any of the regulars. May your god go with you.
Naomi has studied Koran. Has she? Any way studying is one thing and learning after you have studied another. I will leave that aside.
What about you? Have you managed to stop your local pharmacy from selling homeopathic medicine? Or still working to come to terms that other people may not look at things the same way you do?
What about you? Have you managed to stop your local pharmacy from selling homeopathic medicine? Or still working to come to terms that other people may not look at things the same way you do?
> as the majority of you on here are atheists
what a hugely sweeping statement. Just because people don't agree with one apparently rigid and repeated version of Christianity doesn't mean that the rest of us are atheists - we could well be Buddhists or Rastafarians for all you know, people are free to disagree and don't have to state if they follow a different faith. Or is it that if someone's not overtly Christian, you just bundle them up as disbelievers anyway, for convenience?
what a hugely sweeping statement. Just because people don't agree with one apparently rigid and repeated version of Christianity doesn't mean that the rest of us are atheists - we could well be Buddhists or Rastafarians for all you know, people are free to disagree and don't have to state if they follow a different faith. Or is it that if someone's not overtly Christian, you just bundle them up as disbelievers anyway, for convenience?
because here you try to have a discussion, some preach, i do not, of course, on here its different as you cant see the person or actually talk to them, so you try different approaches of communication. in real life i and probably many others dont worry about discussions. on here there is a religious thread, so therefore i discuss.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.